If you haven't tried this, it's pretty awesome...

Love being able to add To-Do items from Firefox. Pretty nice web interface too. Recommended.

in reference to: Toodledo : Your To-Do List (view on Google Sidewiki)

Dell Computer Sucks

So, 'bout a decade ago, I bought a Dell for my home system. State of the art at the time, nice machine - still a commodity mind you, but nice. I took advantage of the payments plan at the time cause it was something like no interest for some period of time - I thought I'd just pay it off after the trial period ended.

Anyway, I get the machine, and set it up - everything's great. I wait for some monthly bill to arrive; never comes - I get busy and forget about it. About 2 months later, I start getting collection calls from Dell. And I mean they're nasty. Real pricks. I explain that I'd have been happy to send them payments if they had just sent me a statement - you know, like every other company in the world operates.

Dell had the gall to tell me that even though they were wrong for not sending me statements (never figured out what happened) it was my responsibility to determine where to send payment, and how much to send!

Long story short - I sent 'em a check for the whole amount and vowed to ever purchase anything from Dell again. I'm happy to say that I've kept that vow for the last 10 years. I've held several management positions, up to VP, with purchasing authority and I've never once, in all these years, bought Dell either personally or (better still) professionally.

When I read something like this, it just confirms what I found out years back - Dell was a garbage company that had poor controls, and the worst customer-service I'd ever seen.

Since this will also get posted to my blog, I hope they see this. It's a post that was long overdue.

in reference to: In Suit Over Faulty Computers, Window to Dell’s Fall - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Andrew nails it again...

We can only hope that some rational Congress in the next two years votes to cut off funding of Obama's Vietnam strategy (and yes, I use that term intentionally).

I don't by the we have to stay because it makes us safe - that's utter bullshit. Occupying a country that really doesn't love us is feeding the recruiting efforts of militant Islamic groups - period.

Think of how much safer we'd be if we pulled the troops, then channeled 1/10 of the Afghan budget into securing our ports and borders.

Being in Afghanistan didn't stop the latest (Times Square) attack - but it certainly caused it. At what point do we as voters throw out all of those who would tie our security to the occupation of a country that has stymied world powers for centuries?

Afghanistan is the place foreign policies go to die. We would do well to remember that, and start bringing our troops home.

I can't begin to express how big a coward and a liar Obama is.

in reference to: Obama: Hostage To Petraeus - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (view on Google Sidewiki)

Stevens is right on this one...

Unbelievable that this can stand up to legal scrutiny. There'a a point at which we enter a Kafkaesque universe in which up is down, left is right, and arbitration clauses must be challenged by arbitration. Scary sh*t here, although to some extent you can understand it. Without any form of viable tort reform on the horizon, businesses have found a way around the courts by inserting these arbitration clauses. While I find 'em loathsome, I certainly understand the impulse.

Until we get serious about reform, and continue to allow jackpot justice in may areas, companies will continue to act in their own best interest. This is an unfortunate side effect of a business culture that's had enough.

in reference to: Editorial - Beware the Arbitration Clause - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Interesting analysis

This one has me entirely conflicted. I abhor the idea of more power accruing to the executive branches, especially in light of the last two to hold the office. That said, I detest the Sarbannes-Oxley bill - I feel it has made American corporations less competitive and has killed several potential IPOs that might have been great due to the fear inspired by having to deal with SarbOx compliance.

I guess on this one, I'll have to say I'm rooting for a limitation of executive powers - we've all seen how bad that can be with Bush/Obama; and the fear of what they've done and might still do definitely outweighs my loathing of Sarbannes-Oxley.

in reference to: High and Low Finance - Justices May Roll Back a Law Inspired by Enron - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A great start...

Good news; especially about not getting the "Doc Fix" in. Now we can start seeing some cost controls "imposed" on Medicare! I never thought the Republicans had the stones to unite on this one. I'm heartened that they do.

I'm not for one moment thinking that there was not an intense political calculus to this - clearly, opinion polls citing a vast majority's concern over the deficit led to this decision, not some high-minded fiscal conservatism. But, the new crop of Republican nominees would lend hope to the fact that this might change. They won't be bullied or bought, and they understand their mandate is to shrink the beast.

This standoff is a great, great start. I'm not naive enough to think that the Doc Fix won't eventually go in, but the delay here might be enough to cause a good portion of physicians to say "Enough's enough - I can't trust the Government" and stop seeing Medicare patients. That alone might be enough to kill Obamacare and send us back to the drawing board to get a consumer-centered model.

I can dream...

in reference to: Unemployment: Outlook Grim For Jobs Bill Ahead Of Vote (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, I'm not as smart as you Stan...

How do we evaluate teachers? Do we assume that by virtue of the fact that they were once certified that they are always excellent? Your fundamental argument seems to be that you can't evaluate the effectiveness of educators until the "fullness of time" has passed. Does this mean that I have to wait till my kid's 18 to get a disastrous 1st grade teacher (who may have irreparably damaged the child) fired for incompetence?

How would I go about it?

Seriously - I'm all ears. In my job, I have goals that I need to accomplish. Goals are:

Understandable
Measurable
Time-boxed

I need to accomplish X by August 15th. It will be judged successful if the following criteria are met.

If I miss enough of these, guess what? I'm probably gonna lose my job. That's what I understand. Now, allowing for the fact that teachers are "different" - how can something similar be put in place? I really, really, really want to know? Cause if you can't measure it, you can't put a price on it.

Really - I'd love to hear the thoughts. I don't want some system that's highly subjective, cause that'll raise the usual "teachers are victims of capricious acts of administrators" or "nepotism, nepotism, nepotism". So, leaving that it has to be somewhat objective - how do we do it?

I'm for anything that provides accountability. But, it has to be measurable and timely - that is, you can't say it's measurable over 18 years - that's utter tripe. Help me out guys. Gimme a good answer and I'll carry the water for you.

in reference to: Deep in the Heart of Texas - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hey Jo Bonner...

Fu*k off!

Obama strong-armed BP, probably using threats of EPA sanctions and Justice department investigations if they didn't acquiesce to the blackmail fund. One wishes they'd paid out all their ready cash in a one-time special dividend to protect themselves from the thieving hand of our government.

Like the abrogation of GM/Chrysler bondholder contracts this clearly exceeded the authority of the the executive. How's it feel to be governed by Hugo Chavez?

in reference to: Editorial - Serial Apologies, No Contrition - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

What a disappointment...

So, I was all excited to see what a nation forced to cut its deficit would look like. As I read further along, I became totally disheartened. The article is way short on specifics regarding the cuts that will be made, but very explicit about the way taxes will rise all over the godamned place (VAT, Cap Gains, Income, industry, you name, they'll tax it - the Beatles were correct, although Sir Paul as a billionaire seems to have had a change of heart, but I digress...).

Most discouraging is Britain's stated plan to create/extend a permanent underclass that pays no income or payroll taxes at all. As we see in the U.S., this is a recipe for building an entitled majority that allows a productive minority to finance their welfare. No incentives for them to improve their lot.

What could have been a great look into the future of our own country as the Chosen One and his merry men abandon all fiscal restraint and continue to generate huge, generational deficits, became just another manifesto on how to raise taxes. A truly wasted opportunity.

in reference to: U.K. Prepares for Deep Budget Cuts - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

All those words...

And not a single one devoted to spending cuts. A 'modest' VAT of course - Paul never met a tax he didn't like - but not an iota of verbiage about the spending side of the balance sheet. Interesting...

in reference to: Now and Later - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Emergency, huh?

If they really thought that spending more money to keep people from working was important, why did they lump it in with other general budget items? If this is such a great idea, not to mention a noble one, why don't we all just quit working and let the government pay us to do nothing? I mean, why am I going at it 70+ hours a week? So I can pay for the others' right to not work? Does that really seem right to you?

And, just because the Times says it's so, doesn't make this emergency spending, exempting it from pay-go rules. You want this, find a way to pay for it, preferably a cut somewhere else, not a tax increase.

Finally, taxing the "carried interest" of Hedge Fund managers as normal income strikes me as a really friggin' bad idea. All you'll do is start to throttle back one of the few drivers of new private employment out there today.

in reference to: Editorial - The Unemployed Held Hostage - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hey Moron - we are prepared to live with it!

You know Bobby, if you really wanted to provide aid to the states (which I heartily disapprove of), perhaps you shouldn't have blown $1 trillion on a healthcare reform bill that's gonna continue to grow in size and be a boat anchor around your Democratic colleagues' necks for at least 2 election cycles.

Consider:

1) Laying off teachers potentially weakens the unions. This is a good thing and will make reform that much easier
2) One could argue (and I will) that the cuts that state and local governments are now making are just forcing them to a point of equilibrium. I mean at some point you have to wonder how they got to this point. That is, nobody told them to spend EVERY GODDAMN dime they collected when times were good - RIGHT?

So now, when the inevitable charge card bill comes due from years of spending to finance every Liberal dream imaginable, including expanding the Public Union's share beyond the dreams of avarice, they come begging, hat-in-hand to the taxpayers for salvation.

I say fu*k 'em. Let 'em drown. What do I do when I run out of money? I stop spending! I might ultimately declare bankruptcy. I suggest that what's good for me is good for profligate state and local governments. Bankruptcy is especially appealing. It would afford Senior status to municipal debt, which would in most cases prevent pension funds and investors from taking too much of a hit, and abrogate Union contracts that are driving most of the fiscal problems in the first place.

Image a world where governments are forced to live within their means. Just the same as you and me - wouldn't that be something?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Unfazed by Reality - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Solution is simple...

Just have team Obama step in and set aside the contracts of the pensioners like they did with Chrysler and GM debt-holders! I mean, it's already proven that contracts mean diddly-shit to the Obama administration. Oh that's right! These are public employees - we have to protect them at all costs - they're union members!!!

So, as much as I loathe the public unions, I have to agree that they have the same rights as the bondholders that Obama screwed. I'm absolutely against the unilateral decision to reduce contractually guaranteed benefits. The solution is to let the states either:

1) Cut elsewhere - I heartily approve
2) Raise taxes - think you know how I feel about this - frickin' retarded
3) Declare bankruptcy - My favorite. This will allow the rule of law to abrogate the incredibly unreasonable union contracts and put the states back on sound footing. If this had been the approach for Chrysler and GM and the courts had dictated the outcome, I would have understood it, no matter how much I might have detested the outcome.

In any case - I don't know how I really feel here. I hate the public unions so much that any time they lose I'm a happy guy. But, I hate the idea of the government overreaching and potentially setting some (more) dangerous precedents even more I think. In this case, I kinda find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting the union claims.

in reference to: Pension Cuts Face Test in Colorado, Minnesota - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So basically Obamacare sucks?

What you're really saying, is that all of those critics - including myself - were right when they said that Obamacare's cost-cutting assumptions were flawed and based on predictions that would never, ever come true.

The doc fix is one of the most disgusting of all Washington phenomenons and yet so very predictable. Put in place a cost-cutting mechanism, then, when it's about to gore somebody's ox, in this case the doctors, immediately take a mulligan and pay the money anyway! It's a beautiful thing!

And, since the based Obamacare on the same type of flawed assumptions that Congress can overturn without requiring any sort of spending offsets elsewhere (or God forbid a revenue gain) or a super-majority to pass, we'll NEVER see any sort of the cost-containment "feature" of this mythical bill. Those of you who believed the CBO estimates on this were morons - they only provided political cover to pass the greatest expansion of government since LBJ. If these cost containment features are allowed to hold, the doctors will flee Medicare in droves - which wouldn't be an entirely bad outcome - we'd return to fee for service and people, even Granny, would start taking an interest in the cost of their own care.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Obamacare! Hope everyone is happy!

in reference to: Editorial - The Doctor Payment Follies - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Clearly, the only solution is...

More spending! The NY Times' editorial staff, including that pompous idiot Krugman never met a social program they weren't willing to break the bank on. What's another trillion dollars in deficit spending among friends?

It's a boat anchor around our children and grandchildren's future. It'll ultimately mean that people from our generation do not get what we're entitled to from Social Security.

Here's an idea - let's just stop spending. Don't do it. See what happens. We might all be pleasantly surprised by the way the capital and financial markets respond to a little bit of fiscal sanity and maturity?

in reference to: Editorial - The Wrong Message on Deficits - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Anything that hurts ObamaCare...

Is OK by me. Just what did these morons expect? They cut around $200 billion from the plans to pay for coverage for the uninsured, and expect the private insurers to not try to make it back? And guess who the premium increases and benefits cuts will hit? That's right - SENIORS! The most reliable voting block in all of America will be told by their private plan providers that the reason they're cutting services (teeth cleaning, hearing aids, etc.) and raising prices is because those Democrats in Congress fu*ked with their Insurance!

It's comical to see this moronic administration now try to bully these same providers into not raising premiums before the mid-terms. Comical, but certainly not unexpected. I love everything about this article - it captures the naked ambition of Administration and Democrats to kill Medicare Advantage. I can only hope we see something similar happen to Social Security should conservative/Libertarians regain control of Congress. What goes around...

in reference to: HHS Warns Medicare Advantage Plan Insurers on Rates - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

QVC Sucks...

You'd think they'd tell you on the air that their credit-card processing system is down. All they do is tell you to call back later!

Tried placing website order and it just says "we're having technical difficulties". Completely unacceptable. Used to love these guys. This is unbelievably shitty customer service.

in reference to: QVC Official Site - Online Shopping for Jewelry, Beauty, Electronics, Fashion and more (view on Google Sidewiki)

Call me old-fashioned...

Guess I'm one of those old-timers who believe the constitution means what it says, unlike Souter. And btw, near as I can tell, there's no constitutional right to "national security".

Pretty simple in my book; you err on the side of protecting individual privacy and liberty. You err on the side of providing the people with too much information.

Everything else is - to use Roberts' unfortunate metaphor - calling balls and strikes. The rules of the game are codified in the Constitution of the United States. End of story.

in reference to: Editorial - Justice Souter’s Counsel - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)